JUDGMENT :

J. Sathya Narayana Prasad, J.

(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying to set aside the orders dated 02.01.2012 and 06.08.2012 respectively, passed by the respective learned Judges in W.P.Nos.726 of 2008 & 16450 of 2012 respectively.)

1. The Writ Appeal in W.A.No.844 of 2013 is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.726 of 2008 dated 02.01.2012 and the another Writ Appeal in W.A.No.1947 of 2013 is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16450 of 2012 dated 06.08.2012.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides and perused the materials placed before us.

3. The case of the appellants is that they are graduates who entered the Revenue Service in the Corporation of Chennai in the year 1985 as Tax Collectors. They were appointed initially on probation and thereafter, their service was regularized in the time scale of pay. They have put in more than 20 years of service as Tax Collectors and their next promotional post is the post of License Inspector. In the year 1981, draft bye-laws of the Madras Corporation Subordinate Service were framed by the Chennai Corporation. The said draft bye-laws have not received the sanction of the State Government. As per the draft bye-laws, for promotion to the post of License Inspector, the qualification prescribed is pass in Accounts Test Part – I. But, the draft bye-laws were not approved and hence, they have no force of law. The appellants were given temporary promotion as License Inspector on 04.09.2006 by the order of the first respondent on the condition that the appellants should pass the Accounts Test Part – I in two sittings. They wrote the Accounts Test Part – I & Part – II, but, they have passed the Accounts Test Part – II alone. Since they did not pass the Accounts Test Part – I in two sittings, the first respondent by order dated 19.12.2007 reverted them back to the post of Tax Collector the post which they held before promotion, from the post of License Inspector.

3.1. The appellants state that the qualification prescribed that they should pass the Accounts Test Part-I is not found in any rule and the same is stipulated only in the draft bye-laws, which has not in the force of law as it has not been approved by the State Government.

3.2. The appellants wrote the Accounts Test Part – I & II in December 2006, but, they did not pass the Accounts Test Part – I & II and again wrote the same Accounts Test Part – I & II in May 2007. In the meantime, the first respondent vide order dated 17.04.2007 had stated that the panel for filling up of the vacancies for the post of Assessors for the year 2007-2008 has to be prepared taking into account 01.02.2007 as the crucial date. It was further stated by the first respondent for filling up the post of Assessors, the qualification prescribed is that the incumbent should have been appointed as License Inspector as on 31.12.2005 and should have passed the Tamil Nadu Office Procedural Test and Office Subordinate Officer Accounts Test Part – I & Pat – II as on 01.02.2007. The first respondent released the temporary panel by the circular dated 06.06.2007 for 2007-2008 as on 01.02.2007 that all persons eligible for promotion to the post of Assessors. The said panel did not contain the names of the appellants herein who are seniors in the cadre of License Inspectors. But the Panel had included the names of persons who are much juniors to the appellants herein, as they had passed the Accounts Test Part – I & Part – II. The objections were also invited to the panel in writing within three days. The appellants along with others made a representation dated 08.06.2007 to the first respondent objecting to the circular by stating that they had been working in the Revenue Department of the Corporation for more than 20 years in various posts.

3.3. It is also the case of the appellants that when this Court in the earlier writ petitions in the order dated 04.02.200